Article Tools

Two weeks ago, for the first time in a decade of reporting in Santa Barbara, I briefly - albeit hysterically - considered the possibility of being poisoned on the job. After more than six months of trying to sort out the nasty charges and nastier countercharges swirling around the internationally renowned Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, I’d finally been granted an audience with the Board of Trustees.

As proponents of the direly named “Vital Mission Plan”- a controversial 25,000-square-foot development project that would demolish six of the 78-acre property’s 30 buildings, remodel two, and erect 16 more, among other “improvements,” with a total price tag likely to eclipse $20 million when all is said and done - the trustees are fighting a hotly contested battle over the future of the garden, once the most serene place in Santa Barbara. They would like the garden to grow into a modern research campus with plenty of special events, but others - many of whom agree that some expansion is necessary - would rather see the garden continue to reflect a more natural heritage and retain its park-like setting. Passions are running so high over this matter that my “invitation” to speak with the trustees explained that they were “deeply troubled” by my “extremely biased” reporting and publishing of “witch-hunt stories against a local nonprofit and ever-escalating attacks upon our board and leadership as opposed to honest journalism that is interested in the truth.” I was ready for anything.

Paul Wellman

Botanic Garden Bridge

There was, of course, nothing to worry about. The seven trustees I met - including a later coffee-shop chat with board chair Fife Symington III, best known elsewhere for resigning as governor of Arizona amid a bank fraud scandal only to later be pardoned by President Bill Clinton - proved more charming than intimidating, more conciliatory than contrarian. Certainly, they could have been putting on their nicest faces for a visiting reporter, but they answered all of my questions and even posed for a group portrait.

What tied the trustees together - indeed, what unites the nearly three-dozen people contacted over the course of reporting this article - was their unflinching passion for the Botanic Garden, which was founded in the 1920s and survives as one of the finest institutions of its type, both for the tranquil pleasures promised by a simple walk along the trails and for the enduring legacy of native California plant conservation, propagation, and education. In many ways, the Botanic Garden is at the heart of what it means to be Santa Barbara - its founding in our city’s formative years fostered an appreciation for open space, a fondness for flora, and a regard for nonprofit organizations as being integral players in a vibrant modern community.

Today, after close to a decade of plotting, the Vital Mission Plan is finally clearing some of the necessary government hurdles to become a reality. But rather than cracking open the Champagne, the trustees are more apt to wallow in their whiskey, as they find themselves under attack from multiple fronts at all times. In the past seven months alone, the Botanic Garden has been scorched by the Jesusita Fire; been financially hammered by the recession; laid off nearly 20 percent of an already lean staff, including several longtime and beloved employees; endured an ongoing strike by more than 60 volunteers, whose free labor used to be the garden’s day-to-day lifeblood; clashed with history buffs who are fighting to undo changes made to the landmark-protected meadow; witnessed three trustees resign before their terms were up; and confronted attacks from Mission Canyon neighbors over the scope of the development plans, which critics say are unsafe and incongruous with the garden’s stated objectives of research, education, and conservation.

Meanwhile, the collective chorus of critics is singing loudly that the Board of Trustees is, via recent amendments to the garden’s bylaws, consciously conspiring to endow the controversial executive director and his administration with more powers while making the Board of Trustees less transparent and less liable for wrongdoing. That, the critics claim, is antithetical to what a not-for-profit public benefit organization should be about. Throw in some charges of low staff morale, overpaid executives, and more whispered rumors of scandal than Santa Barbara has heard in a long time, and you just might see why the trustees would be reluctant to talk to anybody.

But talk they did and, in so doing, both defended themselves against this tidal wave of accusations - they see every affront as a blatant or veiled assault on the Vital Mission Plan, and thus an attack on the garden’s future - and shone a brighter light on the bottom-line effects of these current controversies. “When a not-for-profit is under fire in the press, that damage is substantial,” said trustee Gary Robinson, explaining that the negative attention inhibits fundraising and stalls recruitment of trustees, among other impacts. “Every [nonprofit] has their turn in the barrel, and it sets them back years.”

Whether the garden’s “turn in the barrel” could have been avoided is a matter of debate. Detractors believe a more scaled-back, neighborhood-friendly development plan would have saved money - thereby not requiring layoffs - and stayed in line with the garden’s low-impact history, thereby not alienating anyone. They also say that the Vital Mission Plan is just one symptom of a greater disease spawned by misguided leadership. But supporters of the administration see the ongoing brouhaha as an inevitable result of the competing visions unearthed by the Vital Mission Plan’s public process. What’s not debatable, however, is that the Botanic Garden’s ongoing controversies are tarnishing this otherwise illustrious Santa Barbara icon, and no one is entirely sure what that means for the future.

By Paul Wellman (file)

Edward Schneider

Ed the E.D.

Depending on which camp you claim, the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden’s problems may have started this past April with the layoffs, or in early 2008 when parts of the historic meadow were repaved into a terrace, or years before when the first Vital Mission Plan was introduced - to the community’s collective horror - with plans calling for so many prominent buildings that one planning official said he “almost tossed my cookies” and even current board chair Symington shockingly recalled it to be “breathtaking in scope.”

For many, however, the garden’s troubles started in 1992 when executive director Edward Schneider was hired, for the Vital Mission Plan is his baby. Even if your beef didn’t technically start when Schneider’s reign began, the executive director and president finds himself - whether fairly or not - the eventual antagonist of every critic because he’s the garden’s most prominent face.

Despite early and more recent attempts to reach out to Schneider - whose official title is CEO/President - I’ve yet to meet the executive director in person. That’s not a surprise to many who know him. “Well,” surmised one former employee, “he’s no Bill Clinton.” Schneider has, however, responded thoughtfully more than once to questions emailed his way through the garden’s spokesperson Nancy Johnson, who’s ever-ready to comment in a timely manner.

Schneider, an expert on water lilies, is presiding over a critical time in the garden’s history. Almost everyone agrees that the garden needs to be updated - it has run out of space in the herbarium, for instance - and there’s a need for increased income, which usually comes from special events. With modernizing necessary, it’s likely that anyone in Schneider’s position was destined to take a lot of heat, because the options are limitless and it’s pretty easy to question why a garden needs to rip out plants to erect buildings. And with properly paranoid neighbors surrounding the garden in fire-prone, only-one-road-out Mission Canyon, there was almost certain to be opposition to any plan, no matter how downsized.

It didn’t help that the first, toss-your-cookies incarnation of the Vital Mission Plan proposed so much development, enraging neighbors and the rest of Santa Barbara from the get-go. And there have been other snafus under Schneider’s leadership, including the Japanese Tea House (“How’s that native?” laugh detractors repeatedly) and a short-lived campaign to purchase property in Ojai, which included the brief, what-were-they-thinking name change to “The Botanic Gardens of Santa Barbara and Ojai.”

But for those who don’t like Ed, the real kicker is his salary - in 2007, it was $214,000 including benefits, plus a residence on the property. (He lost that home and many of his possessions during the Jesusita Fire in May, but has been put up elsewhere since.) Surprisingly, Schneider’s salary is not wildly out-of-line with other nonprofits in Santa Barbara, though when compared proportionally to the $33 million budget he oversees, his pay does seem to take the cake, as the few directors in town who do make more also sustain much higher budgets.

To the trustees, it’s money well spent. “We feel he’s paid fairly,” said Gary Robinson. “Ed has the most seniority out of any executive director in town.” Symington called him the “top tier of botanic garden directors in the world,” explaining, “He’s made good decisions, he’s raised tremendous amounts of money, and he’s been good for the garden. I believe he’s right about the Vital Mission Plan and about moving the garden into a new era.” Schneider has also been offered more lucrative contracts elsewhere, but repeatedly decides to stay. “It’s a critical time for the garden, and his departure would negatively impact the future,” said Robinson. “That’s not to say he’s perfect. We don’t rubber-stamp everything he wants.”

There is, however, a cast of characters who wholeheartedly believe that the board’s leadership - namely Robinson and Symington - are indeed rubber-stampers. Bill Lewis, one of the volunteers who went on strike to protest the administration’s trajectory, explained, “Ed has bungled this job from day one by force-feeding his vision on architects, neighbors, and the board. The garden is fighting battles that it should never have had to because Ed only sees his vision.” Echoed Lewis’s cohort Christine Riesenfeld, “Ed’s plan is to keep us from the trustees, keep the members in the dark, and keep in the community in the dark. That’s the opposite of what nonprofits should be doing.”

Among other demands, the volunteers asked that the trustees comply with their bylaws. “So what do they do?” asked Riesenfeld. “They change their bylaws.” The trustees, who say the bylaw changes were a long time coming, believe that the volunteers simply want Schneider fired. Riesenfeld denies that is necessary to win them back, but does admit, “It would be a start.”

By Paul Wellman (file)

Paulina Conn

Allied with the striking volunteers is history buff Paulina Conn, who six years ago got the garden’s historic meadow - a 23-acre swath that was designed in 1938 by legendary landscape artist Lockwood de Forrest - designated a county landmark. “The current administration came in with a totally different idea of what a botanic garden is supposed to be,” said Conn. “They emphasize the word ‘institution’ rather than ‘garden.’” Conn’s landmark designation was essentially an end around to protect the parts of the garden she felt might be trampled by Schneider’s vision. “The curator of an art museum wouldn’t put a mustache on the Mona Lisa,” said Conn. “That’s what they’re doing to the Botanic Garden.” Conn’s campaign was validated last week when the county Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission mandated that the meadow terrace be completely removed. The garden has not decided whether to appeal that decision or not.

Paul Wellman (file)

Mark Chytilo

As the attorney representing the anti-Vital Mission Plan group Friends of Mission Canyon - who feel that the plan defies the constraints of the box canyon - Marc Chytilo is probably the loudest of Schneider’s critics. “When you are managing an organization like this, it’s really part of your responsibility : to maintain relations with their neighbors as well as with elected officials and the larger community,” said Chytilo. “They have rejected that concept, I think, and certainly rejected our overtures to work amicably and come up with something we could all support. They’ve intentionally put themselves into this very adversarial position.” He recalled a road project that the garden completed about three years ago, in which Schneider promised not to shut off Mission Canyon Road, but it happened anyway. “There was a real breach of trust there,” said Chytilo.

By Paul Wellman

RESIGNEDINDISGUST: Described by one watchdog as “the bravest trustee who’s been on the Botanic Garden board in the past 15 years,” developmental pediatrician Karen Davidson resigned from the board in September. “They are so full of negativity,” claimed Davidson, who was frustrated by sweeping bylaw changes and the attitude toward striking volunteers. “The things that were said about others were so upsetting, not because of what is said about others, but what is said about the people saying them-and what they’d say about me.”

An Insider Speaks

Even the most passionate potshots from outside an organization only carry so much water. So when the striking volunteers were able to convince trustee Karen Davidson that it was time to talk, I was all ears. A developmental pediatrician who’s been working in Santa Barbara for more than 30 years, Davidson was asked to join the board in March 2009, and attended her first meeting in May.

Once on the board, Davidson started ruffling feathers by suggesting that the volunteers’ concerns should be taken more seriously. But she said that Schneider told her “absolutely not - the board stays together and we will have no such meetings.” Davidson was “floored” and “appalled,” especially because the volunteers have nothing personal to gain by their actions. “They are community stalwarts, a very mixed group with a sense of loyalty to the garden,” she explained. “Instead, they’ve been decimated and slandered.” Something similar occurred when eight staff members sent an unsigned letter to the board in May complaining about leadership. “I was amazed that it was never discussed,” Davidson recalled, “never given any credibility.”

In both instances, the current trustees claim they did all they could to facilitate a solution. “We really, in good faith, sought to focus on their needs and the future, but they kept wanting to focus on the past - there’s not much we could do about the past,” said Robinson of the volunteers, who he said were presented with options that were immediately rejected. “There was essentially no compromise - just a restatement of demands.” As to the letter from staff, “An anonymous petition in any organization is very difficult to deal with,” said Robinson, but he assured, “It was considered.”

To help alleviate the ongoing struggle to attract trustees, Davidson submitted four nominations for what she believed were qualified candidates. But Symington replied that they don’t want to bring on trustees who aren’t supportive of Schneider or the Vital Mission Plan or who are supportive of the volunteers’ moratorium. The trustees now say that there is no such blanket ban on trustees and that these candidates are still being considered. “Concerns were raised when some of the trustees suggested had written very vitriolic letters against the garden. As a board, we saw this as a red flag,” said Robinson. “That’s coming in with a pre-set agenda. We want open minds.”

From the get-go, Davidson said she felt overwhelming pressure to fall in line with what Schneider, Symington, and Robinson wanted and that she would get “hateful looks” from people when she was critical of decisions. “I am sure that individual people on the board are just as ethical and caring and empathetic and kind as any person can be,” said Davidson. “The problem is that those who are leading it set the tone and it becomes unanimous.”

Of her second board meeting ever, which she attended with four other brand-new trustees, Davidson said, “It was announced that the bylaws had been rewritten and they wanted to vote on them.” She was concerned that, rather than addressing the complaints from volunteers that the trustees were not upholding the bylaws, the trustees were rewriting the bylaws to fit the status quo, and she worried such a tactic was “fundamentally undermining.” When she spoke up and opined that maybe the new trustees didn’t have a grasp on the issues yet, she recalled, “They were furious at me.”

Due to these troubles, Davidson was set to resign at the September board hearing, but relented because two current staff members called her with pleas to stay on. “I was very taken aback by those,” she said. Davidson stayed on through that meeting and watched the bylaw changes get approved without much debate. Unable to take it anymore, Davidson resigned a couple days later. “I have a very hard time feeling like I have let people down,” she said, “but I can’t continue to hit my head against the wall until I have no head left.”

While sitting in my office one September afternoon wearing her cleanest knee-high gardening boots, Davidson explained, “I want the way this board functions to be understood. That is what I quit about. I don’t want to be on a board that says who I can talk to and who I couldn’t. I’m a professional. I know the rules of ethical conduct.”

When asked about Davidson, all of the trustees I met seemed genuine when they said they were sad to see her go. Even Symington seemed sorry that she resigned. “I think she did the right thing for her,” he said. “I don’t think she was happy.”

By Paul Wellman

TRUSTEESIN A TEMPEST: To the 11 trustees, every attack on the Botanic Garden-whether a complaint about the executive director, a concern raised over bylaw changes, or an issue with fire safety-
is an assault on the controversial Vital Mission Plan. “When they’re publicly attacking the institution, the board, and the administration, that’s just an attack on the Vital Mission Plan,” said trustee Gary Robinson (far right). “The public can’t separate those.” Also pictured are (from left) Chuck Rennie, Jim Koopmans, Bill Koonce, Elizabeth Keate, and Bill Jackson.

The Trustees Talk

After getting Davidson’s frightening perspective, I was ready for the trustees - and based on their rather insulting invitation, they were more than ready for me. I showed up to the garden as the sun was setting on November 5, and found trustees Gary Robinson and Bill Koonce waiting outside. As we walked down toward the Arroyo Room, Koonce, a physician by trade, stopped to show me a Pacific yew and explain how successful the native plant was in fighting ovarian cancer. It seemed, at first, to a be a slightly forced interaction - as if I would be convinced of his pure intentions because of his affection for a shrub - but I later realized that Koonce was a wide-eyed plant lover, and these sorts of diversions were par for the course.

That love for plants - especially the rare and native Californian variety - was iterated over and over again by the seven trustees, who see their affection best embodied by the Vital Mission Plan. Through that lens, every critique becomes an attack on the plan, and that’s led to a with-us-or-against-us mentality that seems to be the accepted order of the day until the to-be-determined groundbreaking. “When they’re publicly attacking the institution, the board, and the administration, that’s just an attack on the Vital Mission Plan,” said Robinson. “The public can’t separate those.”

With more than $4.5 million invested already and damage from the Jesusita Fire to boot, the trustees see the Vital Mission Plan’s success to be more vital than ever. “If we give up again, the capital investment becomes an expense,” said Symington. “Then all of the time and money will have been wasted.” So this time around, Symington pledged, “We’re committed to going the entire way.”

Though they say a welcome mat awaits volunteers who’d like to return, the trustees otherwise feel handcuffed by them. “It’s very difficult to deal with a group whose agendas are multiple and boil down to fire the director, scrap the Vital Mission Plan, bring back everyone who was fired, and leave the garden as a park,” said trustee Chuck Rennie. Trustee Connie Harvie, who observed that the trustees are volunteers, too, said that it “hurt a lot” when the volunteers did not return after the fire to help out. But the volunteers say that they tried to come back - Bill Lewis even pledged up to $1,000 in support - but that roadblocks were put in their way. Nonetheless, Harvie was still wondering what their intentions are. “I never understood why they wanted so much information about the running of the garden,” she explained, “which is not what they’re charged with.”

As to the bylaw changes and charges that the trustees are simply followers of the administration, the trustees chuckled. “I don’t think anyone has a problem with dissension,” said Rennie, a veteran of many nonprofit boards. “We’re anything but homogeneous. We get the feeling that the volunteers see the board as a monolithic cabal. Our decisions are not all unanimous.”

Paul Wellman

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden

The neighbors are also a sore spot for the trustees. Harvie, a former real estate agent, said she once did the math and realized that, instead of the garden, there could be 200 homes on the property. And all involved are quick to point out that the neighbors vehemently opposed the installation of six fire hydrants on the property, which saved the garden from total destruction during the Jesusita Fire. (The neighbors, meanwhile, say that version of the story is a thorough misrepresentation.) Had the neighbors had their way, Schneider explained via email, “There would have been no hydrants on Mission Canyon adjacent to the garden when the Jesusita Fire hit. The firefighters who worked side-by-side with me as we worked to protect everything we could - yet watched nearly two thirds of the garden burn - told me that without the hydrants, they would not have been able to save so many historic buildings, and that the fire could have spread down the canyon consuming even more homes.” To Schneider and his supporters, that’s evidence that the Friends of Mission Canyon are simply obstructionists. “If you’re in the mood to be opposed to the garden,” said Symington, “you’re in the mood to be in opposition to everything the garden does.”

The trustees maintain that they’ve proceeded “judiciously and sensitively” with respect to the Vital Mission Plan. “You finally reach a point where you’ve changed significantly, and you do your best to meet everyone and get down to what really makes sense and what the garden needs to retain its status both nationally and internationally,” said Symington. “You get to that point and say, ‘Okay, here it is.’ But the opposition says, ‘Oh, we’d like you to change a little more.’”

Critics have also warned that the garden’s finances are dangerously low, but Symington blamed the recent losses on the recession. “The layoffs weren’t even on the radar screen until the market collapsed,” he said, explaining that, overall, “We’re in good financial shape.” The trustees also defended the monies spent on attorneys and marketing campaigns related to the Vital Mission Plan, such as paying Davies Communications large amounts of money even after the layoffs. Said trustee Elizabeth Keate, who’s donated to Friends of Mission Canyon in the past, “That was a priority goal at that point - to get the Vital Mission Plan through.” Though no one would answer the admittedly unfair question of whether they’d have gone through with this knowing how much time and money it would take, Robinson did admit, “We’ve certainly spent more than we hoped, but I guess that’s the experience in Santa Barbara.”

With so many controversies swirling, it would make sense that employee morale could be low, especially if, as some have suggested, a culture of intimidation and retaliation exists. But that’s not entirely the case, at least according to staff accountant Gayle Kopitzke, who’s worked there a little more than five years. “I very much freely speak my mind,” said Kopitzke. But she also agreed that, earlier this year, morale was depressingly low following the layoffs and the Jesusita Fire. “Those two things in combination would put anybody over the edge,” she explained.

Her comments were corroborated by Cherie Welsh, manager of human resources and volunteers. “In my position, I hear a fair amount of what goes on, and I don’t see the fear of retaliation being an issue,” said Welsh, stating that it’s actually illegal to retaliate against whistleblowers. “If I saw management doing something that looked like retaliation, I would certainly be counseling them against that and making sure that didn’t happen.”

Though no fearful employee was willing to speak on the record - or really speak much at all - I did receive confirmation from a handful of current staffers who said that the charge of intimidation was not fictional. More accurate, though, they say that there is a prevailing sense of top-down rule, in which everyday employees’ opinions don’t matter and that they feel expendable rather than valued.

Where Do We Go Now?

So is this, as the trustees believe, just another loud Santa Barbara County fight over development or, as the striking volunteers and worried community members posit, a much deeper philosophical battle whose spoils boil down to the fate of the Botanic Garden’s legacy? After more than six months of following the issue, I’d say that it seems to be a bit of both. But more critically, it would be best for everyone not to confuse disgust with one aspect of the garden as a reason for dropping support altogether.

Paul Wellman

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden

As a veteran of many nasty campaigns for public office, Symington, for one, isn’t at all shocked that this is what it’s come down to. “It’s an inevitable part of competing visions. None of this really surprises me,” he said. “My job has been to let everyone know what it’s like to be in a political race. : As it gets close to a final vote, things will ratchet up and emotions will run high.” He does, however, now understand that the path toward getting a final vote takes a while in Santa Barbara. “It’s probably one of the most thorough and difficult public processes in the country,” he said. “I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it is a challenge. Hopefully good will come from it.”

That vote will fall on the Board of Supervisors, and isn’t likely to happen until sometime in 2010. Until then, the trustees - and, presumably, everyone who cares about the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden - are hoping that these current skirmishes don’t leave indelible scars. “There comes a point when resistance like this can have a profoundly deleterious long-term effect on the institution,” explained Rennie. “A small group can and will create long-term damage.”

That makes former employees and longtime garden supporters a bit nervous. Former director of education Mary Carroll, who left the garden in 1998 and penned the definitive history on it in 2004, has remained “nonpartisan” and sees the current debate as something along the lines of the national political clash of left versus right. She’s not sure where it will all end up, but she does hope the Botanic Garden emerges unscathed. Because, in the meantime, Carroll explained, “We’ve lost the bigger view of how lucky we are it’s there.”

Comments

Just because you've already spent a boatload of money on something should not color the reasons pro or con for proceeding forward. As the board itself says, they look to the future, not the past. It appears that their vision of the future is not widely supported and perhaps not even supportable given the physical characteristics of Mission Canyon.

Actually, it is widely supported - 6,500 have signed up for support of the VMP. The opposition may be about 30 - not sure. Possibly information about this should have been included in the article. Santa Barbara is truly blessed by having the Garden, and it will be even more significant after the VMP is completed.

Seriously? This article is RIDICULOUS, so overly biased I can hardly finish reading it. It's obvious the Independent has been leeching on the Garden controversy, continually reporting and spreading mis-truths about the breadth of the Vital Mission Plan. We're talking about 25,000 sqft on SEVENTY-EIGHT ACRES (that's nothing!) It's such a small plan, especially for a world-renowned Botanical Garden that does research, educates, and provides an amazing resource for our community. The Garden has ALWAYS been a research and educational institute they ARE NOT expanding, but improving their facilities to do the same work they have always done. There is no change in use, just simple upgrades to the buildings. Their plans are not going to "obliterate" views like opponents claim, it's a smart plan and our community is behind it. And yes, I was one of the 6,500 that signed up in support of the Garden's plans. Please, Independent, start representing both sides of this issue and not just your own "voice". Thanks.

Ha! I'd say more of a one-sided Op-Ed. I only see good at the Botanic Garden. The plans look good and will only make it a better resource for us all. Why are people fighting improved education, research, and conservation potential at the Garden? To call the Garden's plans "massive" is laughable. The plans are modest, only a fraction of the Garden's overall land, and completely necessary to keep the Garden functioning and thriving as the educational and research institution, which it has always been. I would hope the protesting volunteers come to their senses, and the opposing neighbors back down, and let our beloved Garden make the minor changes to continue their important mission. It is - after all - a living, breathing thing. Not something that should be kept unchanged, frozen in time, restricted - just because a few would like to see it that way.

It's so sad that a few disgruntled neighbors who seem to think they have ownership of the Garden are stirring up so much dust over this. With 78 acres 60 of which were scorched in the fire to tend to, the Garden really has to do something about their old facilities. With what they have now, they'll very quickly fall behind the times with respect to research and science. Oh the opposition all makes sense now: keeping the Garden buried in the past instead of looking forward to the future:

The fact of the matter is that these upgrades at the garden are much needed. They have run out of space, more than 75% of their property burned, and they are and always have been a scientific institution first and foremost, and THEN a peaceful, quiet place to walk around. The latter is a by-product of the former. Based on the petition the garden circulated, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people in the community supports the Vital Mission Plan.

What 60 volunteers? I think you need to get your facts straight. There are around 20 volunteers who upset about the the Vital Mission Plan and have use other issues to make a sad case. And other volunteers who got caught up in the storm have returned to the Garden. I cannot imagine any other local non-profit going through the abuse that the selfish neighbors have put the Garden through over the past decade. Even Westmont did not get so beaten up and their plan called for 350,000 square feet. The Garden calls for 20,000 on nearly the same number of acres.

This is clearly Op-Ed. I wouldn't have made it through my journalism classes if I'd tried to pass this off as straight news -- too much opinion-ladened, value-laden, judgmental language.Consider these from the above piece: "I briefly - albeit hysterically - considered the possibility of being poisoned on the job", "direly named", " 'improvements' " (Kettmann's quotation marks), "granted an audience", and so forth.Do I think that the coverage in the Independent has be "extremely biased"? I don't know that I would say 'extremely', but I think that there has been editorializing and opinion that indicate that the coverage was not the unbiased 'who, what, when, where, how' that I was taught was necessary in straight news.I'd be happier if news and opinion were clearly differentiated.

Good point, doreejaco. The Garden is only using 1% of its expansive property for new buildings, and they will be in the same footprint as the ones that already exist. It's not like we're talking about new homes that a developer wants to build to make profits. This is a Non-Profit institution one that offers classes, lectures, tours, and invites people of all kinds to come enjoy their natural oasis that merely wants to update facilities to accommodate the researchers and teachers. The poor Garden staff are being treated as if they are money-hungry scoundrels, when they are only trying to protect and enhance the Garden. 25,000 square feet. That's all. What's the big deal? It's equivalent to one of the Mission Canyon neighbors building a garage on their 1-acre property, and we give them no grief. What has our community come to? Leave the Garden alone if you have nothing nice to say!

My guess, Bela, is you are an ardent supporter of the Garden's VMP. (the only opinion I have in the matter is the scale of pay for the higher ups seems way out of wack, for a small non-profit in a small town).

How do I know this? By careful reading (highly recommended!), and by Kettmann's descriptive and predictive tale of the Thin Green Line of Board members and those who love them, circling the wagons and condemning wholesale any and all non-believers.

.... I'm now going to check your past comments, and see if you have weighed in on past Garden articles...

Okay, I'm back:

:::: Bela has 11 additional comments, 8 of which are on Garden-related stories, all pro-Board but for one neutral comment.

Again, Bela, I recommend taking your time, reading carefully, and stop tossing brick-bats at writers far better and fairer than you. The mere fact that 3,000 words were devoted to letting the Board and Directors have their say belies your attempt to insinuate a bias on the reporter's part.

And I'm guessing you didn't do so well in those journalism classes, based on your consistent misplacement of quotation marks inside punctuation.

The garden's website now has the 2008 990's posted noting Ed Schneider's salary and benefits last year was $242,840. In April this year he fired 9 employees, 8 women and 1 man, including a woman who had worked there for 28 years and was earning approximately $63,000. This discrepancy is one of the main reasons so many long-time volunteers (myself included) walked out in protest. Here we were donating our time, energy, gas and wear and tear on our cars donating thousands of hours over many years, and this is how they spend the money we help provide? Give me a break! This had nothing to do with the VMP. (I had previously spoken in its favor at several hearings.) Other money spent has still not been accounted for.

With the amount of acreage that the Garden is responsible for, what they are asking for is equivalent to about 400 square feet (about the size of a garage) on a one-acre property. It's important to get some perspective here before we start taking in phrases that the opposition coins, like "massive development".~Santa Barbara resident

I am not convinced that the person who wrote this article does not have a bias against the Garden. There seems to be a negative adjective or adverb placed wherever possible, and anything that might sound positive is placed in "quotes" to be sure it is not perceived as fact:

"Reading these posts blows me away! Everyone who's got something against the garden seems to think it's just a local park for local neighbors to use. IT'S NOT A PARK. It's a botanical garden, and it happens to be one of the state's most precious collections of native plant species. Not just for neighbors to walk their dogs through, but for the entire country and world to look at and admire. If you want a neighborhood park, go to Skofield or Rocky Nook - they're less than a mile away. If you're annoyed that a botanic garden is operating in our neighborhood - GET OVER IT. It's been there longer than all of our houses have, and it's a resource for the whole world to enjoy."

Not for profits only hide behind that title. There are profits - lots of them - and they are used to support all kinds of big and little perks.The Garden has always had an outstanding reputation and been a place of beauty, learning and peace.That is obviously changing. Don't let all the talk cloud that fact.

Binky, How do you know this? ESP ?"Add another to the list, Kratatoa: the Board is rallying the foot soldiers!"

6,500 people voluntarily, without any external pressure, signed up to support the VMP. Are none of those people allowed to express their opinions without being "McCarthy"ised as being puppets of the Garden?

I have posted many times in support of the Garden, even though I have expressed reservations to them about certain things --- because I support the VMP and have done so actively.

So Binky, is that your real name? Funny you are attacking people for being anonymous, when you yourself use a pseudonym. I just viewed your profile:you say your weaknesses are: "temper, ego, too much time online." I'd have to agree with that!

Stop criticizing other people just because they have a different opinion. I'm tired of people attacking the Garden's VMP by attacking people, rather than sticking to the facts. Whether you think the Director's salary is too high or not, doesn't change the fact that the Garden's VMP is needed and well-thought out. The main opponents continue to attack the Garden's staff, the director, and even twist facts to try to instill fear in our community. Their tactics are getting old.

Is being a careless reader part and parcel of supporting the VMP and the Thin Green Line of Board supporters?

Here are answers to the questions you so desperately need, "markonic":

1. Yes, it's my real name.2. No, I'm attacking the orchestrated response by VMP minions who reflexively attack anything less than full-throated support, usually without the courtesy of reading what is in front of them.3. Yes, those are my weaknesses -- guilty as charged!4. It's harder to criticize people who share the same opinion.5. I still think the Director's -- and other executives -- salaries are excessive.

Binky - I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's salary without knowing what they bring to the table and their scope of responsibility. Dr. Schneider brings some very important and relevant experience and expertise to the Garden that is not easily replaceable. He was recruited to work for the Garden from a university teaching position in Texas years ago because of his specific skill set. His years of education and research should certainly be rewarded - his path is not an easy one.

Also, it's interesting that you're criticizing supporters of the Garden for being supportive, when you appear to be just the same but for the other side: a "minion" of Marc Chytilo's "orchestrated" response against everything the Garden does.

Kratatoa - you have some real audacity. Are you suggesting that no one should blog on the Independent if we don't blog ALL of the time? Get a life. Have you ever attended any of the Botanic Garden hearings on their new plans? I've attended three of them, and feel very informed. I support their plans whole-heartedly.

Kratatoa, are you suggesting that everyone inspired to post for the first time by this article is a "spammer"? Did you not have a first post, some time back before the flood, or did you emerge full grown from the thigh of Zeus?

Board member Robinson makes the same disastrous mistake in the article that others are making here in the comments, confusing support for/hostility to Schnieder, Symington and the Board, with support for/hostility to the VMP. Robinson justifies ignoring all criticism of the Board as mere hostility to the Plan. He's not paying attention. That way lies antagonism and failure.

I support the VMP as a plan, but I've withdrawn my active support since exposure of the Board's non-adherence to 501(c)3 transparency and their justification of excessive compensation as "in line with other non-profits." The Botanic Garden isn't just any old high-society non-profit, so many of which exist as tax dodges for wealthy individuals. The point isn't to do what they do, pass a lot of tax-free money around via big salaries and perks and have nice cocktail parties while occasionally giving a handout to some hardworking organization staffed by low-paid professionals and volunteers. The point is to respect and build the reputation and practice of a great horticultural institution. The VMP will contribute to this, along with the work of the garden's volunteers and staff. Having a highly-paid ED is NOT Vital to the Mission, and right now, it's slowing down fundraising at a critical time. What to do, what to do? I know! Show you care about the Garden more than the Man! It's time for a big shake-up on the Board. Let's wait and see.

Right you are, Nitz: "Board member Robinson makes the same disastrous mistake in the article that others are making here in the comments, confusing support for/hostility to Schnieder, Symington and the Board, with support for/hostility to the VMP. Robinson justifies ignoring all criticism of the Board as mere hostility to the Plan." These are two separate issues. Many people DO support the one but not the other.

Has the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden explored alternatives for many of the structures it is proposing to build? Wouldn't the garden and community be better served if many of the proposed facilities were located off site? There are many fine buildings currently for lease and sale in the Santa Barbara area. Because these buildings are available now the garden could better use and protect its holdings immediately. Leasing or buying vacant buildings would also help the Santa Barbara economy in the current downturn.

The many rare books would be better protected in a less fire prone area. Why put these valuable books at risk? If the library were located downtown, the library would have easer access for the public and scholars with out adding traffic to Mission Canyon. The seed and plant collections would also be better protected from fire if they were located in a safer part of Santa Barbara.

Why does the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden need to remove our natural areas to provide housing for its employees? In the current recession there are many fine homes and condos in Santa Barbara for sale and lease at ever more affordable prices.

Why remove our natural areas for classrooms. The natural outdoor areas of the garden are the best classrooms our children could have.

At a recent public meeting given by a Garden employee regarding the Gardens expansion plans. She stated "the Garden employees deserved" these new facilities. This is an example of the Gardens faulty point of view. The Garden and its employees should be serving the community. The community and natural areas should not suffer in order to enhance the position of those who work for the garden.

There is no justification to remove our valuable and irreplaceable natural areas especially when doing so will adversely affect all of the Gardens neighbors and when alternative locations and solutions are available.

Silvercloud, we've been through all this before. SBBG is a GARDEN, not a "natural area." Nearly everything growing there was planted on purpose, and the buildings have been inadequate for years. The Garden cannot carry out its research and education missions if the collections, classrooms and Library are moved off-site to various scattrered locations. While there are a few things in the Vital Mission Plan I'm not totally pleased with, it's time to move forward, not keep going around and around in the same circles. Grrr....

I would add to JanT's above post: Having on-site employees means less gasoline consumption/pollution caused by more cars on the road and the convenience of having people who live on the property if there are problems that arise.